Re: THE STONES

I don't think they fit in with Coach. Paul McCartney is a little different, he never tours, never. Stones tour all the time still.

Umm... Since 2002 I have seen Paul on four seperate tours, and he has had more:

Driving USA Tour April 1, 2002
Back In The U.S. Tour September 21, 2002
Driving Mexico Tour November 2, 2002
Driving Japan Tour November 11, 2002
Back in the World tour March 25, 2003
'04 Summer Tour May 25, 2004
The 'US' Tour September 17, 2005
Summer Live '09 July 11, 2009
Good Evening Europe Tour December 2, 2009

And The Rolling Stones are the only band comparable to the Beatles. If (when?) the Stones play Coachella the audience will be almost exactly like it was for McCartney; that is, completely diverse. I am 20 years old and I grew up listening to their music just as much as someone born in 1950.

Re: THE STONES

Re: THE STONES

Ronnie might not be joining them on tour next year:

According to a report by the Daily Mail, The Rolling Stones may be looking for a new guitarist.

After several public events, including drinking and alleged assault on his 21-year-old girlfriend, guitarist Ronnie Wood might be replaced. Singer Mick Jagger is reportedly looking for a new guitarist for the group. It was stated the singer thinks Wood has become unreliable since his left Jo, his wife of 23 years. She was said to have acted as a conduit between Wood and the rest of the band.

"It's one thing to say 'Let's have the Stones frightening the grannies, let's all be debauched and wild,' but it's just not acceptable to have one seen choking his girlfriend," said a "friend" of the band. "There are two things you can't be seen to do, which is hit women and get involved with under-age girls. Thanks to Ronnie and Bill Wyman [who seduced and went on to marry 13-year-old Mandy Smith], Mick has had a full house now."

Rumors have spread about the Rolling Stones touring in 2010 and if so, Wood may be a financial problem and a distraction for the group. Since Jagger was said to have always sided with Wood's former wife Jo, things may be different for the group at some point soon.

Re: THE STONES

I grew up around music of that generation too; The Who, The Doors, Led Zep, Byrds, Yard Byrds, Eric Clapton, Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, etc... all completely amazing acts. My father is a musician, so that was always implanted in my brain. But I would still rather have different headliners at this fest. I am going either way, and would probably still watch the Stones.

Re: THE STONES

Originally Posted by El.C.Dub

Ronnie might not be joining them on tour next year:

According to a report by the Daily Mail, The Rolling Stones may be looking for a new guitarist.

After several public events, including drinking and alleged assault on his 21-year-old girlfriend, guitarist Ronnie Wood might be replaced. Singer Mick Jagger is reportedly looking for a new guitarist for the group. It was stated the singer thinks Wood has become unreliable since his left Jo, his wife of 23 years. She was said to have acted as a conduit between Wood and the rest of the band.

"It's one thing to say 'Let's have the Stones frightening the grannies, let's all be debauched and wild,' but it's just not acceptable to have one seen choking his girlfriend," said a "friend" of the band. "There are two things you can't be seen to do, which is hit women and get involved with under-age girls. Thanks to Ronnie and Bill Wyman [who seduced and went on to marry 13-year-old Mandy Smith], Mick has had a full house now."

Rumors have spread about the Rolling Stones touring in 2010 and if so, Wood may be a financial problem and a distraction for the group. Since Jagger was said to have always sided with Wood's former wife Jo, things may be different for the group at some point soon.

My dad was telling me about this when we were talking about music festivals on XMas Eve and I brought up that they are rummored to play Coach.

Re: THE STONES

Yes, but think of all the artists who could even possibly headline Coachella. Then subtract the artists that haven't headlined already. You get a pretty small list of artists. The beauty of Coachella is the undercard. The headliners have always (for the most part) been commercially successful bands/artists with some mainstream appeal, for purposes of selling tickets to the average music listener. It only makes sense that the most commercially successful band of all time would eventually play Coachella.

Furthermore, bands love playing Coachella because it is among the top 3 best music festivals in the world, and I would argue is by far the hippest. The Stones would love to play Coachella, and I doubt they would try and bleed GV dry in terms of money. The Stones don't need money, they need to feel relevant and cool again. Also, the Stones have mimicked the Beatles throughout their entire career so why not again now.

Re: THE STONES

No no no no no.. The Rolling Stones are horrible live.. Seriously people, if you think the Stones are still good live, go to Youtube and pull up footage from their Rio concert.. Bleck.. If this were 1992 then I would say hell yes, but the Stones have completely gone downhill and I find their concerts boring and mind-numbingly dull.

Paul McCartney and Roger Waters have that alternative edge that the Stones severely lack these days.. If the Stones play Coachella they will play all of their staple crap that they rehash every year they go on tour.. Satisfaction, Jumping Jack Flash, Paint it Black, Start me Up.. they will not play 2000 light years, Under My Thumb etc. because they no longer have the talent to play these tunes..

If Coachella has the Stones headline this year, we might as well just turn Coachella into a Classic Rock fest.. hell, why not book 48 Special, Bachman Turner Overdrive, Styx, Boston, Heart and the Steve Miller Band next year..

Coachella is a progressive music festival.. The RollingStones are about as progressive as Tiger Woods marriage vows.. Please keep the Stones very far away from the Empire Polo Fields.. Coachella is not a place for burnt out classic rock bands, that have not done anything of importance over the past 30 years..

Re: THE STONES

I saw the Stones live in 2005, and while it was better than the Bob Dylan shows i've seen in my life, they are wayyy past their prime. Watch Shine a Light (Scorcese). He makes them look as good as anyone can, and they are still slow. The music is great. I have tons of their LP's. But, as far as seeing classic rock bands today, a very small minority can still put on a great live show. Roger Waters being one of them.

Re: THE STONES

Originally Posted by cristóbal

But, as far as seeing classic rock bands today, a very small minority can still put on a great live show. Roger Waters being one of them.

...and Paul McCartney would be another. While I actually enjoyed having McCartney and Waters headline the Stones would be pushin it. I would prefer having U2 to the Stones. U2 kicks the shit out of the Stones nowadays.

Re: THE STONES

Originally Posted by cristóbal

I saw the Stones live in 2005, and while it was better than the Bob Dylan shows i've seen in my life, they are wayyy past their prime. Watch Shine a Light (Scorcese). He makes them look as good as anyone can, and they are still slow. The music is great. I have tons of their LP's. But, as far as seeing classic rock bands today, a very small minority can still put on a great live show. Roger Waters being one of them.

Re: THE STONES

U2 please no! The Who are good but they should hnag their puts up!!!!! Their musice still sounds good..but..... Roger's voice is shot! The first 5-6 songs are great the rest of the concert he's straining his voice. The stones will not replace ronnie its ways to late in their game to find a new guitarist. Since the steel wheels tour they've always talked about replacing him. It helps with their hype to get fans excited and riled up for the next big tour.

Re: THE STONES

are people really saying they DON'T want to see The Stones? Like...really? really really?? These must be the same people think Gang Of Four would be a suitable headliner. Like, what the fuck, am I the only one who thinks just being in Mick Jaggers presence would be an honor?

Re: THE STONES

And it will be replaced by 90s acts? The 70s deserve a pool. Time to give guys like Elton John or even the Bee-Gees a shot. And yes, I know they started in the late 60s. Abba, anyone?

I brought up ABBA as potential performers at Coachella a while back (I'm sure others, like yourself, have as well). Agnetha isn't having any of it. They might have done it ( a reunion) were she willing. But she's not. I will say if they did play, it would be the biggest selling Coachella of all time.

And I am well beyond anyone posting an "ABBA- WTF?? Are you nuts?" responses, so save it peeps. I realize it's always en vogue to say you hate ABBA. But when no one's looking we all like Dancing Queen. I just personally don't mind being public with it.

Re: THE STONES

Originally Posted by hendrixfan143

yep fuck the stones. get neil young

Word.

I'm not putting the Stones down. They will be remember for a very long time. And should be. Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers, Let it Bleed, Exile on Main Street, and a slew of non-album singles from that era alone would make them legends. It is just that these gigantic names replace new bands that still need to write their history. The Stones have been hanging out in their epilogue for some time now. If they played, of course id check it out. I just hope Coachella picks new music to headline, support modern art, its made by us.

I saw Paul in Vegas in 2005, it was a lot of fun. But Roger (my own bias...mayyyybe) was just spectacular. Hands down the greatest concert i've experienced.

Re: THE STONES

Originally Posted by joppy-slow

No no no no no.. The Rolling Stones are horrible live.. Seriously people, if you think the Stones are still good live, go to Youtube and pull up footage from their Rio concert.. Bleck.. If this were 1992 then I would say hell yes, but the Stones have completely gone downhill and I find their concerts boring and mind-numbingly dull.

Paul McCartney and Roger Waters have that alternative edge that the Stones severely lack these days.. If the Stones play Coachella they will play all of their staple crap that they rehash every year they go on tour.. Satisfaction, Jumping Jack Flash, Paint it Black, Start me Up.. they will not play 2000 light years, Under My Thumb etc. because they no longer have the talent to play these tunes..

If Coachella has the Stones headline this year, we might as well just turn Coachella into a Classic Rock fest.. hell, why not book 48 Special, Bachman Turner Overdrive, Styx, Boston, Heart and the Steve Miller Band next year..

Coachella is a progressive music festival.. The RollingStones are about as progressive as Tiger Woods marriage vows.. Please keep the Stones very far away from the Empire Polo Fields.. Coachella is not a place for burnt out classic rock bands, that have not done anything of importance over the past 30 years..

Re: THE STONES

I totally disagree. The stones WOULD put coachella on the map. Everyone will disagree with me and say that I'm "DUMBASS" ect..... If anyone has paid attention to the last 40 plus yrs of rock n roll THE ROLLING STONES have played a big role in the sound,shape, and life style of this genre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Face it like many of us who have gone to coachella in the past I would love too see the smiths reunite. Even lay to rest the david bowie threads..... anyhow let it bleeeeeddddddd